SHAKUNTALA DEVI Vs. BALBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 17.5.2012, passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala whereby he has partly accepted application of defendants to de-exhibit certain documents. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that order is wholly unsustainable. Certain documents which are necessary for just adjudication of the case, have been de-exhibited by the court below. Said order deserves to be set-aside.

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 has vehemently opposed the plea. He submits that plaintiffs have no right to adduce evidence in rebuttal to prove issues, onus of which lay on him. He has relied upon judgment reported as Hanumant Singh v. Babu Singh and others, 2010(2) CivCC 311.

(3.) A suit was filed by the plaintiffs in the year 2007 seeking declaration that they were co-sharers in possession of the suit property as stated in the plaint. They also prayed that decree dated 19.7.1989 qua the suit property be declared null and void. They claimed that they were co-sharers in the suit property. During the pendency of trial, plaintiffs moved an application for leading additional evidence. Same was dismissed by the court on 3.4.2012. After being unsuccessful in the effort, they tendered documents Ex.P14 to P18 in rebuttal evidence. This was objected to by defendant/respondents. The court allowed the plaintiffs only to tender judgment dated 14.6.1994 as Ex.P17. Rest of the documents were ordered to be de-exhibited. I find no infirmity with the order. Needless to observe, plaintiff got ample opportunity to lead affirmative evidence. The documents now sought to be exhibited, were never brought on record. Their application for leading additional evidence was dismissed on 3.4.2012. Thereafter, they sought to tender the documents in rebuttal evidence. In my considered view, prayer has been rightly rejected by the court below. In Hanumant Singh's case (supra) this court held as under:-